Classical Theories of Management - Essay Example

Classical Theories of Management Introduction Stevenson (2009) traces back the origin of classical management theory to the industrial revolution when factories began experiencing unprecedented challenges. Managers were not certain about the right direction to go as far as counteracting industrial problems was concerned. The primary motivation for developing the classical management theory was to increase productivity and efficiency. When application of classical theories of management was at the peak, managers would use near mechanical methods in organizing labour to achieve their sole goals of productivity and efficiency (Drucker & Maciariello, 2008). The classical management theory comprises of three schools of thought: scientific management, bureaucratic management, and administrative management. Although some organizations apply one or more of these theories in managing their employees, most people consider them outdated and inapplicable in managing the 21st century workplace that needs more visionary leadership styles. Scientific Management Frederick Taylor advanced scientific management in his quest to increase organizational productivity (Taylor, 2003). Frederick emphasized on the efficiency of production processes that could be achieved through empirical research. Availability of skilled labor became a major problem among the 19th century industrialists (Cameron & Green, 2009). Only few people were educated at the time, and the few available were on high demand due to increased number of industries hiring them. Managers thought that the best way to increase efficiency of the available labor was to draw strict lines between tasks. This decision might have been arrived at because managers believed that they were more intellectual than the workers were, and their duty was to supervise workers as they perform their work. Taylor’s emphasis on high target is desirable since business organizations desire to grow and expand. However, this principle concentrates on selecting the highest standard possible for employees. Taylor did not accurately define the highest standards; this can cause exploitation of employees especially those who are hired on hourly rates. Although Taylor encouraged managers to use piece-rate basis of payment, some companies may stress employees to work harder than their capacity as these companies strive to achieve their target standards (Hersey, Blanchard & Johnson, 2001). This can cause stress and poor welfare among employees. Standard conditions proposed by Taylor encourage rigidity of organizations. Shunning flexibility is detrimental when some factor in the organization need adjustment in order to achieve overall success. The principle of separating planning from performance is inapplicable in the twenty-first century. Separating planning from performance implies limiting employees from participating in management decision-making. Taylor, therefore, creates machines in human beings as they are required to execute plans and not in making them. Taylor is credited for introducing specialization and division of labour, which aim at splitting work into stages and assigning employees work according to their level of capability. Specialization and division of labour is critical as it increases the level of productivity and enables workers to develop skills in the tasks they are best suited (Allen, Maguire & McKelvey, 2011). However, Taylor emphasized on drawing strict lines between tasks and making each employee perform their only tasks throughout their stay on the factories. If managers apply this principle on the same basis, it will only create machines in people who cannot handle even the easiest requirement in a different task. Excessive division of labour and specialization also causes boredom and limits the experience of workers in the organization concerning matters in other production sections (Taylor, 2003). The current workplace prefers people with knowledge, skills, and experience in several disciplines. For example, an accountant may have marketing skills, be experienced in driving, and be equipped with some teaching skills. Diverse employees make it possible for superiors to delegate and reduce chances of work ceasing if an employee is absent due to unavoidable circumstances (Ingraham, Pierre & Peters, 2010). Taylor’s principles, unless they are tailored to suit organizational prospects, limit the desired visionary leadership of the modern world. Bureaucratic Management According to Max Weber, bureaucracy was the term used for describing organizations that are superior to others. Weber argued that an ideal organization should be characterized by clear lines between superiors and subordinates with rationally thought and objectives and activities (Styhre, 2007). Unrests that were witnessed during the industrial revolution made Weber to prefer highly skilled and experienced people to run organizations to inexperienced workers. Bureaucracies hire only exceptionally skilled people on technical matters regardless of whether these employees have desirable administrative skills or not. Leaders in bureaucratic environments do performance evaluations based on merit and emphasize on a clear chain of command within a well-defined hierarchy (Bateman & Snell, 2013). An ideal bureaucracy finds limited space of application in the modern world. Hierarchy of authority is not necessary in this era where managers are developing bottom-up approaches to management decision-making. The system of rules and regulations is a critical component of any organization as it enhances the level of discipline among the organizational publics (Drucker & Maciariello, 2008); however, systems of rules should not be too strict as Max Weber intended them to be. Bureaucracies were designed to impersonal in order to combat the unrests of the industrial revolution; most managers who apply the principles of bureaucracy intend to minimize emotional factors among workers and avoid frictions and confusions. Determination of organizational goals in this era cannot be left on the hands of those in power alone as everyone in the organization need power to make goals of their functional units. Supporters of bureaucracy argues that bureaucracies create careers because they base their promotions and employment on technical merit (Ingraham, Pierre & Peters, 2010); this is desirable to some extent, but the twenty-first workplace require that at least everyone in the organization need to be recognized and rewarded in whatever small they can manage. Recognizing only the technical experts with excellent productivity may lead to lose of self-esteem among other workers who may even quit the organizations. Bureaucracies cannot be tolerated in this century where rotational leadership is believed to constitute the fundamental ingredient of visionary leadership. Most bureaucrats desire dominance of authority such that they do not want to give up power unless they cease to exist (Styhre, 2007). Lack of rotational leadership shuns chances of leading with a clear vision since greedy managers take this opportunity to exploit other organizational stakeholders. Excessive red tape prevalent in bureaucratic environments forces people to observe too many laws and procedures; this leads to task standstills and reduced communication across organizational levels that could enhance performance. Additionally, bureaucracies do not believe in flexibility; there is only one way of doing things that cannot be altered. According to Bateman and Snell (2013), rigidity is the greatest cause of poor performance in organizations since the current world is characterized by complexity and dynamism. Administrative Management Administrative management is actually the origin of the definition of management. Henri Fayol developed five elements of management: planning, organizing, controlling, coordinating, and staffing (Drucker & Maciariello, 2008). Fayol came up with fourteen principles of management, which he divided into two categories; these are human relations and administrative efficiency principles. Human relations principles include subordination of individual interests to organizational interests, equity, stability, initiative, and working in unity. These principles are desirable and applicable in the twenty-first century era. However, opponents of administrative principles argue that Fayol’s human relations principles are too general, vague and costly (Blyth, 2009). The principles do not focus on individual employees since they concentrate on the organization as a whole. The costly aspect of human relations principles arises since critics view putting all the principles into practice would be both time consuming and expensive. Fayol’s principles of administering the organization have faced widespread criticisms due to their inapplicability in modern organizations (Drucker & Maciariello, 2008). Administrative principles include authority, discipline, unity of command, unity of direction, centralization remuneration, scalar chain, and order. The authority principle of Fayol implies that superiors have the rights to give an order and that order to be followed (Fayol, 2003). Fayol emphasized on parity or balance between authority and reasonability. This principle implies that subordinates cannot question the decisions of managers, leading to lack of democracy and lack of participative decision-making processes. Fayol defined discipline as observing diligence and respecting superiors in addition to rules and regulations (Fayol, 2003). Fayol emphasized on the responsibility of managers to enforce discipline within the whole organization. However, Fayol did not recognize the fact that some managers are the worst lawbreakers. To some extent, Fayol emphasized on centralization of administrative points, although he added that managers should seek the equilibrium between centralization and decentralization (Blyth, 2009). Visionary leadership is difficult to achieve in the contexts that are devoid of pure decentralization. The twenty-first organizations are founded on the basis that everyone is a leader. Except for these criticisms, successful organizations have arrived at desirable management through application of Fayol’s principles. Conclusion Arguing that all principles of classical management theory are completely inapplicable in the twenty-first century would constitute a fallacy. Organizational managers need to study comprehensively the tenets of scientific, administrative, and bureaucratic principles to identify the desirable points that they can institute into their organizations. Modern organizations are mostly influenced by factors in the external environment such as dynamism, globalization, cutthroat competition, and employee turnover. Classical theories of management concentrate on internal matters alone and fail to consider macro-environment of businesses. The rising need for a more visionary leadership has rendered obsolete most principles of classical management. Strategic management teams should adopt management theories that have the potential of leading the organization towards the achievement of its goals, mission, and vision. References Allen, P., Maguire, S., & McKelvey, B. 2011. The SAGE handbook of complexity and management. Los Angeles: SAGE. Bateman, T. S., & Snell, S. 2013. Management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Blyth, M. 2009. Business continuity management: Building an effective incident management plan. Hoboken, N.J: J. Wiley & Sons. Cameron, E., & Green, M. 2009. Making sense of change management: A complete guide to the models, tools & techniques of organizational change. London: Kogan Page. Drucker, P. F., & Maciariello, J. A. 2008. Management. New York, NY: Collins. Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. 2001. Management of organizational behavior: Leading human resources. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall. Ingraham, P. W., Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. 2010. Comparative administrative change and reform: Lessons learned. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. Stevenson, W. J. 2009. Operations management. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Styhre, A. 2007. The innovative bureaucracy: Bureacracy in an age of fluidity. London: Routledge. Taylor, F. W. 2003. Scientific management. New York: Taylor & Francis. Read More